Association Between Administration of Antacid Medication and Anastomotic Stricture Formation After Repair of Esophageal Atresia.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic stricture is a significant cause of morbidity after repair of esophageal atresia (EA). Exposure to gastric acid has been postulated to contribute to stricture development and severity leading to prophylactic antacid use by some surgeons. We investigated the association between administration of antacid medication and the development of anastomotic strictures. METHODS: Retrospective case-note review of consecutive infants undergoing repair of EA with distal tracheoesophageal fistula (type C) between January 1994 and December 2014. Only infants who underwent primary esophageal anastomosis at initial surgical procedure were included. Stricture-related outcomes were compared initially for infants who received prophylactic antacid medication (PAAM) versus no prophylaxis, and the role of PAAM in stricture prevention was explored in a multivariate model. Outcomes were also compared for infants grouped by antacid use at any stage. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen infants were included. Sixteen infants received PAAM at surgeon preference. Of the remaining 98 infants, 44 subsequently received antacid as treatment for gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and 54 never received antacid medication. There was no statistically significant association between incidence of stricture in the first year (10 of 16 versus 41 of 98; P = 0.18) nor time to first stricture (median, 57 d [41-268] versus 102 d [43-320]; P = 0.89) and administration of PAAM. Similarly, there were no statistically significant associations between incidence of stricture, age at first stricture and number of dilatations, and administration of antacid medication either as prophylaxis nor when given as treatment for symptoms or signs of GER. CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support the hypothesis that PAAM reduces the incidence or severity of anastomotic stricture after repair of EA. Treatment with antacids may be best reserved for those with symptoms or signs of GER. Further prospective investigation of the role of antacid prophylaxis on stricture formation after EA repair is warranted.

Aggressive multi-visceral pancreatic resections for locally advanced neuroendocrine tumours. Is it worth it?

CONTEXT: Traditional surgical principles state that pancreatic resection should not be contemplated when malignancies arise in the pancreas and involve other organs. While this is logic for ductal adenocarcinoma and other tumours with aggressive biological behavior; for even large neuroendocrine tumours, aggressive multivisceral resection may achieve useful palliation and excellent survival. DESIGN: Case records were retrospectively analyzed. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Twelve consecutive patients (7 males, 5 females; median age 57 years, range: 37-79 years) underwent multi-visceral en bloc resections for neuroendocrine tumour arising in the pancreas between 1994 and 2008. RESULTS: Three patients underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy; 9 patients had left sided pancreatic resections for neuroendocrine tumour of median diameter 9.5 cm (5-25 cm). They had a median of 3 (range: 1-4) additional organs resected. There were no post-operative deaths or late mortality with median follow up of 24 months. Five patients experienced a complication (major in 3 patients). Median disease free survival was not attained and 3 patients experienced recurrent disease mostly in the liver and may be candidates for further resection. CONCLUSION: Aggressive multi-visceral resection for locally advanced neuroendocrine tumour involving the pancreas is technically feasible and in selected patients can be achieved with low mortality and acceptable morbidity, offering good disease free and overall survival. However this complex surgery should be only performed in specialist centers.

Is interval appendicectomy justified after successful nonoperative treatment of an appendix mass in children? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Interval appendicectomy (IA) is commonly performed after successful nonoperative treatment of appendix mass (AM); although, this approach has recently been challenged. We systematically reviewed the pediatric literature with regard to the justification for this practice. METHODS: Using a defined search strategy, studies were identified and data were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Incidences of recurrent appendicitis, complications after IA, and carcinoid tumor were estimated accounting for interstudy heterogeneity. Cost and length of stay of IA were analyzed. RESULTS: Three studies (127 cases) reporting routine nonsurgical treatment were identified; all were retrospective. There was marked interstudy heterogeneity and variable follow-up. After successful nonoperative treatment of AM, the risk of recurrent appendicitis is 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-28.4%). The incidence of complications after IA (23 studies, n = 1247) is 3.4% (95% CI, 2.2-5.1), and the incidence of carcinoid tumor found at IA (15 studies, n = 955) is 0.9% (95% CI, 0.5-1.8). No reports compared costs. Mean length of stay for IA was 3 days (range, 1-30 days). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective studies comparing routine IA with nonoperative treatment without IA in children are lacking. Available data suggest that 80% of children with AM may not need IA. A prospective study to evaluate the natural history of this condition compared with the morbidity and costs of IA is warranted.